Tag Archives: The Supreme Court

Bill Lockwood: Democrats: The Anti-God Party of Karl Marx?

by Bill Lockwood

Several recent agendas pushed by the Democrat Party indicate that they are not only the anti-America Party which pushes for Open Borders and a larger socialist confiscation/redistribution program than already exists, but are aggressively adversarial when it comes to belief in God. From chiding judicial nominees who believe in God to removing ‘so help me God’ from oaths—the Democrat Party is adopting the mantle of atheism.

Sen. Cory Booker, for example, recently asked judicial nominee Neomi Rao if she believed that same-sex relationships were immoral. Rao has been nominated to be on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She would replace Brett Kavanaugh if confirmed.

Booker pressed her. “So you’re not willing to say here … whether you believe it is sinful for two men to be married, you’re not willing to comment on that?”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked Amy Coney Barrett, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” in a 2017 hearing. Barret was then a nominee for the 7th Circuit Court. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said to Barrett in that same hearing: “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.

Brian Buescher was nominated to be on a district court in Nebraska. His membership in the Catholic Knights of Columbus was something that brought out the hostility of Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The thought patterns of these prominent Democrats is obviously that any sort of Christian belief is a hindrance to public service.

Removing “So Help You God”

Next, as reported by The Hill, the newly-minted Democrat-led House Committee on Natural Resources is seeking to have the words “so help you God” removed from the oath cited by witnesses who testify before the panel. The proposal was originally obtained by Fox News.

The rules proposal states that witnesses that come before the committee during its hearings would be administered the following oath: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of law, that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth [so help you God]? According to Fox News, the “so help you God” phrasing is in brackets in red in the draft and indicates that the words are slated for removal.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) probably summarized this Democrat-led move with the best critique: “It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of the first acts in the majority…They really have become the party of Karl Marx.”

Art. VI. Sec. 3–No Religious Test

Some may suppose that these godless Democrats are in line with the Constitution at Art. VI, sec. 3 which forbids a “religious test” for public officers in government. But this is ignorant of the meaning of the Constitution.

Article VI of the Constitution gives Americans several General Provisions. One of them involves an “Official Oath” that is to be required of Senators and Representatives and all “executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states.” They shall be “bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

First, there is to be an ‘oath’ of office. What seems to have escaped the modernist anti-theism approach is that the very nature of an oath assumes that the one giving that oath believes in God. By definition an oath is a solemn “calling upon God to witness the truth of what one says.” In effect it is to say: If I am not telling the truth then I call upon God to strike me down or to punish me

This is why Washington, when taking the first oath of presidential office, added “so help me God.” In the Old Testament an oath was to be taken in God’s name for the same purpose. To “take the Lord’s name in vain” (Exod. 20:7) then, is making a profession in “God’s name” and failing to live up to that profession. Primarily, this involved a legal oath. By extension the command meant “You shall not use the name of God, either in oaths or in common discourse, lightly, rashly, irreverently, or unnecessarily, or without weighty or sufficient cause” (Matthew Henry).

Obviously, by the flippant and irreverent manner in which Americans misuse the name of God has muddied their thinking about Deity and the very nature of an oath. And none are more confused than the Democrats who press for an “oath” without realizing the nature of it.

Second, the oath is itself is a recognition of God. James Iredell, a Justice of the State Supreme Court of North Carolina (1751-1799), during the founding period, commented on Article VI in the following manner.

According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a ‘solemn appeal to the supreme being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments according to that form which will bind his conscience most.’ It was long held that … none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded…Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a supreme being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments…. Indeed, there are few people so grossly ignorant or barbarous as to have no religion at all.

We have reached the point at which the “barbarians” are now running the government from the Democrat side. Iredell explained further pertaining to the oath:

…it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it [the oath] believes in a supreme being and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury would not be dreaded.

Third, what then of the No Religious Test? Article VI also states that “there shall be no religious test.” Many of the colonies were established by groups of people who subscribed to certain tenets of various faiths—that is, branches of Protestantism (see Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States, 183-84). Their state oaths would automatically exclude at a state level those who had contrary views.

But when it came to the federal government these same delegates insisted that it had no jurisdiction over religious matters. They were particularly fearful that a “federal test might displace existing state test oaths and religious establishments” (David Barton, “A Godless Constitution?: A Response to Kramnick and Moore,” Wallbuilders.com). In other words, the framers believed that religion was a matter better left to individuals and to their respective state governments, not to the federal government. No religious test primarily referred to the various exclusive doctrinal tests at the state level and kept the federal government in a neutral position.

However, whether one believed in God or did not subscribe to general biblical principles was far from what was intended in Art. VI, sec. 3. The idea that America might one day become a “godless state” as the current Democrat Party embodies was not in the framer’s minds. As Richard Dobbs Spaight (1758-1802), a representative from North Carolina to the Constitutional Convention, put it: “I do not suppose an infidel or any such person will ever be chosen to any office unless the people themselves be of the same opinion.”

This is what makes the comments of the Cory Booker’s and Dianne Feinstein’s so distasteful. They are not even in a “neutral position.” Their anti-God agenda, which is reflected across the board in the Democratic Party, is open hostility against Christian principles. Little wonder then that the socialism of Karl Marx appeals to them. It begins upon an atheistic platform.

Jesse Lee Peterson: KAVANAUGH WIN: HOW TO DEAL WITH UNREASONABLE PEOPLE

Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson thumps constant attacks from ‘illogical minds’

by Jesse Lee Peterson

For the past two weeks, President Trump’s latest confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went through hell. But Donald Trump continues to win for America, as his enemies – in anger – destroy themselves while trying to hurt him.

The left showed us a glimpse of their uglier side in the process of the judge’s confirmation. The lynch-mob liberal media excitedly cast him as a high school rapist. Raised a devout Catholic, Kavanaugh said he never had sex until many years after high school. But now a decent family man will forever be called a rapist. His daughters will face this lie from the children of the lie for the rest of their lives. Hate-filled people easily believe and repeat slanderous lies about innocent men.

We watched evil, egotistical university students violate the rights of conservative classmates who peacefully protested on behalf of the judge’s innocence. One angry black woman assaulted them, stole and destroyed their property, biting and ripping up their pro-Kavanaugh signs. This leftist #MeToo supporter cursed and shouted that their demonstration “is a ‘F—you’ to survivors” of sexual assault. (See what “education” gives young people – illogical minds filled with lies and poor judgment, and evil hearts filled with arrogance and anger.)

Witnesses said that the black female attacker was a member of the student government at the University of Texas at Austin. At least one hateful male followed her lead and joined in the theft and destruction of property. These people commit the injustice they claim to hate, because they blame the outside world for the hell within themselves. They’ve gone out of control, worse even than older Democrats like Dianne Feinstein, a wicked woman whose soul is dead.

Victor Davis Hanson noted this “campus chaos” also infects Congress with grandstanders like Sen. Cory Booker, D-New Jersey. Meanwhile, weak RINOs and Democrats cooperate with and cater to this madness!

What is the root of all this cowardly pandering by males, and the blind rage of evil women? Unforgiveness.

Never mentioned in the phony expressions of support for alleged victims is their need to forgive.Even if you suffer physical harm or loss, let go of anger – anger is the mother of fear. Years after the body heals, your mind is messed up because your soul is possessed by the spirit of anger. Anyone who wrongs you may never admit it. But you’re not God – you have no right to hold anything against anyone, including yourself. Forgive, take responsibility, and stop participating in victimhood.

Dr. Christine Ford, the psychology professor who falsely accused Judge Kavanaugh, has issues. She reportedly spent her career researching (apparently unsuccessfully) how to heal from trauma, and come back stronger. She suffers not from “attempted rape,” but from hatred in her heart. Her husband said she did not “get along with her parents because of differing political views.” She hated the “very male-dominated environment.” She could be free, like President Trump, if she dropped anger and turned back to her father.

Most people’s problems start as children when their parents, especially mothers, cause them to become angry. Children suffer when disconnected from their fathers – that’s when they disconnect from God. Salvation is a return to the Father. But if you don’t love your earthly father, you’ll never know God.

I know why weak, politically correct RINO Republicans have such difficulty standing up to the unreasonableness of the left. They never overcame trauma from their angry mothers. Weak fathers failed to protect or set an example for them.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Men with anger do not know how to deal with unreasonable, pushy people, particularly women. Instead of protecting their children and country from evil, they surrender to insanity. In fear, they cower and cave while the left keeps pushing. Then they justify their weakness, offering rationalizations – just phony excuses.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., made concessions for evil after angry activist women confronted him in an elevator. Screeching Soros-funded feminists (one possibly an illegal alien!) screamed and cried at him. Flake stood like a little boy with face downcast, as if his mother or wife yelled at him. He then delayed the judge’s confirmation, granting undue credence to false attacks on Kavanaugh’s good reputation.

But if you are not bitter about the things you go through in life, you get better. President Trump deals perfectly with the challenges he faces – nothing stops him. He stood steadfast for Kavanaugh, emboldening others to do the same.

Justice Clarence Thomas dealt with false character attacks by Anita Hill and her ilk. To this day these leftist losers won’t shut up with their slander and dishonest speculation. But Justice Thomas stands solid as the strongest voice for sanity on the Supreme Court.

If Justice Kavanaugh can love, not hate or fear his enemies, he too can grow stronger from this experience.

We are fighting for the soul of America. Never kiss up or play along with evil. Political correctness is evil. Notice that leftists shamelessly say and do whatever they want, and never apologize for it. It’s time for people on the side of good to be bold, fearless and anger-free in this spiritual battle.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-win-how-to-deal-with-unreasonable-people/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?

Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?-“The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell.”

by Tom DeWeese

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/17/will-brett-kavanaugh-stand-for-property-rights/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography

American Oligarchy

American Oligarchy- “America is already in the chartered waters of an unconstitutional oligarchy.”

by Bill Lockwood

Oligarchy means that governing powers of a state belong only to a few persons. The concept carries the idea of despotic rule, the very opposite of a “We the People” system. Our Charter of Liberty, the Constitution, organizes power from the bottom up—this in order that free people might maintain that freedom by controlling their servants—the government. Two hundred thirty years after our founding, however, Americans find themselves ruled by a top-down federal oligarchy called The Supreme Court by which every law or expression of freedom might be negated as “unconstitutional.” Instead of tracing the course of how we arrived at this point, Americans need to begin contemplating how to rid ourselves of this despotic monstrosity.

To set the issue clearly, hear the words of President Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Chief Justice John Marshall. “You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” Jefferson added that judges are not subject to “elective control” and noted that “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”

Prophetic powers Jefferson did not possess, but he, as well as the entire class of founders in that generation, understood the nature of liberty, the nature of man, and the constructs that were necessary to guard our own freedoms.

Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued with Jefferson that “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere” and that the Supreme Court was that arbiter. Marshall voiced the feelings of the entire class of modern attorneys now battling in various courts for favorable rulings. “Whatever the court decides is constitutional” is the doctrine. Jefferson answers Marshall’s “there must be an ultimate arbiter” argument: “True, there must; but does that prove that it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States.”

If the Constitution is what it purports to be, the power rests with the people acting through their elected representatives, not a High Court. What is WRONG with the Supreme Court being the “final arbiter” of the meaning of the Constitution?

Judicial Supremacy?

First, the Constitution itself does not erect such a tribunal. Is the Constitution, or the Supreme Court’s decisions the ultimate law of the land? Jefferson made this very point against John Marshall. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal …” Exactly. How is it that the Constitution itself gives to the Judicial system a certain limited number of jurisdictions, eleven types of cases to be exact, and “judicial review” is not one of them?

The same battle is found in religion. Is the Bible, the Word of God, or the Roman Catholic Church and its “Holy See” the final arbiter of what is God’s truth? Or, to put it more basically, do “the people” have the right and authority to interpret the Bible for themselves, or does that prerogative belong only to the Roman Church?

The Catholic Church asserts itself as the “final arbiter” as to what is or is not “scriptural.” But the God nowhere gives to the Roman Church such authority. People can read and understand the Word of God for themselves. It is only the Roman Catholic Church that arrogates to itself the authority to determine God’s Will.

In the same way The Supreme Court makes its own high-handed brazen assertions of its supposed authority. This position itself is not Constitutional.

Second, the doctrine of Judicial Review has been perverted into Judicial Supremacy. Judicial review simply posits that the Supreme Court has the authority to construe the Constitution in certain cases that come before it. But this opinion of the Court necessarily applies to the particular facts and parties of the case—not to everyone else or to the entire country. A case in point. Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court in 1973 supposedly found a “right” in the Constitution which allowed a woman to kill her unborn child. That was flagrant enough. Then the Court overturned 200 years of history and all 50 state laws that protected the life of the unborn. This is not law. It is lawlessness as the Supreme Court imposed its godless will upon an angry populace.

Instead of “Judicial Supremacy” our nation was founded upon the concept of “Constitutional Supremacy.”

Third, the Constitution is a contract, drawn up between the People and its Representatives in the Federal Government. That being the case, how has it occurred that only one party in that contract maintains the sole authority to interpret the terms of that contract? St. George Tucker was professor of law at the College of William and Mary during the Revolutionary period. Writing a commentary on the Constitution he noted that it was a “compact” to which the states were parties with the federal government and that this “compact” limited the role of the federal government.

The very nature of the Union is a compact or a contractual form of government. If each side of the contract is equal, why cannot both sides to the contract, the states and the federal government, each have equal ability to assess the meaning of the Constitution?

Fourth, the Constitution was ratified by the People several years before the Supreme Court was appointed. Every provision of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights (1788, 1791) had clear meanings to the people who ratified them. This is why the Founders, unlike the clandestine legislators today who wish to pass bills to “find out what’s in them,” argued every clause in the newspapers at the time. It was a People’s law. All was settled long before there came a Supreme Court to make determinations. The Supreme Court was organized in 1789 and did not convene until 1790.

If it is the case that the Supreme Court “determines” the meaning of the Constitution how was it ratified by the people who were ignorant of its meaning? How can officeholders take the oath to uphold the Constitution if they cannot know what it really means until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on the clauses?

A few more questions: What if the Supreme Court takes up the liberal notion that a “militia” of the 2d Amendment is an organized National Guard unit and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is limited to government appointees? What if the court system defines “Treason” as opposition in writing such as this article? Far-fetched? Who would have supposed that The Supreme Court would take in hand to “define” our cultural practice of marriage to include a union between two homosexual persons? Where is that authority bestowed in the Constitution? Finally, why did the American people have to wait for The Supreme Court to “overturn” a lower court’s opinion that had halted President Trump’s Travel Ban—a prerogative clearly given to him by the United States code?

America is already in the chartered waters of an unconstitutional oligarchy. The battles now raging will only continue as long as the American people allows the Federal Government, The Supreme Court specifically, to act illegally by assuming “undelegated power.”

Gender Assignment?

Gender Assignment?

by Bill Lockwood

We have entered the fantasy world of Obama’s Alice in Wonderland in which nothing is as it seems. Not even basic scientific facts are “tolerated” in our diverse world of “political correctness”—let alone God’s Word. The only response left for thinking Americans is “Unbelievable!”

Take, for example, the new transgender policies enacted by Barack Obama via the Supreme Court. A recent eight-page letter from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education tells school districts to be compliant with Title IX protections against sex discrimination by allowing students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender “they identify with.”

It matters not what God created in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16), or what medical science and common sense knows about an individual, be “it” male or female—Obama’s Government says: “A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” The government letter further states: “A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so …”

But what exactly is “transgender?” How does the Obama Administration define it? “Transgender describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.” Further, the letter goes on to point out that “A transgender male is someone who identifies as male but was assigned the sex of female at birth; a transgender female is someone who identifies as female was but assigned the sex of male at birth.” Gender identity is “an individual’s internal sense of gender.” Science be hanged: How do you feel about yourself? What “assignment” made the doctor who delivered you?

What Have We Come To?

Imagine this. You and your wife are excited about the baby she is carrying in her womb. At five months of pregnancy the doctor, through modern technology, is able to determine the baby’s gender. Either the apple has a stem or it does not. Only two alternatives. But wait! That which you plainly SEE via the sonogram is not determinative of anything! The doctor only “assigns” a gender. Nothing scientific. Nothing natural. It is only an arbitrary “assignment” that is encoded on the birth certificate – “M” or “F”—which can be “changed.”

The same when the healthy child arrives. Baby boy or girl is the question. Blue or pink ribbons? You are excited to hold your baby girl. “Not so fast,” says Doctor Obama. The “boy” or “girl” question is unsettled! “We will,” promises Doctor Obama, “place female on the birth certificate. But it is only temporary.”

This is similar to having “an assignment” handed you as a graduate from Officer Training School in the Air Force. You might be “assigned” Luke AFB or Travis AFB or some other. But if you don’t like that “assignment” go get it changed. That will be difficult, if not impossible. But the Commander-in-chief will allow you to alter the “sex you identify with.” Unbelievable.

I wish to identify as a WWII decorated hero who landed on the beaches of Normandy. Shall I write my government and demand my Silver Star and Purple Heart medals? What about my Medal of Honor that is due me for heroism on the battlefield? Will President Obama hang it on my neck? After all, my “identity” is what my “internal sense” dictates—not what is reality.

Back to Homepage